I have Pitchfork to thank for the heads up, and it’s indicative of a new normal I’ve fallen into. Lately, I’ve been checking the site in the morning and giving one or two of the albums a spin without reading the reviews. For me, this is the perfect middle ground between curation and discovery. There’s enough info on the front page to pique interest (artist name, album name and art, genre, the implication that it’s notable for some reason) and a wealth of information waiting in the review if I like what I hear. The score and whether the reviewer liked the album — they’re not irrelevant, they’re just secondary, which I’ve found to be a more beneficial hierarchy.

I don’t mean to crap on Pitchfork here — that’s a pastime I tend to opt out of. Just sharing what’s been working for me. Given more time, I think I probably would read every review they publish. Pitchfork’s writing remains the strongest and most consistent in the realm of music criticism, and I’ve been enjoying their new Sunday reviews of notable past albums. (Be sure to check out Amanda Petrusich’s take on Tusk.)

Speaking of good writing, I love how narrative Thunder Tillman’s music is. I was hooked halfway through the EP’s first song, “Exact Location Of The Soul,” in large part because I felt like added elements and changes in mood were advancing a story.